BARTLETT v. GTE CORP., et al.

NOTICE: The slip opinions posted here are
the latest electronic versions available from the Michigan
Supreme Court. Updates are posted as received from the courts.
Consult the advance sheets and bound volumes of the official
reports for final revisions and proper pagination. Errata and
requests for correction of Michigan Supreme Court opinions should
be submitted to: Reporter of Decisions, Box 30052, Lansing, MI
48909; (517) 373-1977.

BARTLETT

v.

GTE
CORP., et al.

May
25, 2001

118048

SC: 118048

COA: 228756

WCAC: 99-0321

TIMOTHY
C. BARTLETT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v

GTE
CORPORATION, and INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

GTE
CORPORATION, and LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY,

Defendants-Appellees.

On
order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal from the
October 23, 2000, order of the Court of Appeals is considered,
and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question
presented should be reviewed by this Court.

Kelly,
J., dissents and states as follows:

This
case warrants further consideration. The WCAC reversed the
magistrate’s award of benefits. It found that the testimony of
the treating doctors was not substantial evidence that
plaintiff’s degenerative back condition was aggravated in a
significant manner by plaintiff’s employment. It appears that the
WCAC conducted a de novo review of the evidence, rather than
determining whether the magistrate’s decision was supported by
competent, material, and substantial evidence.

Contrary
to the WCAC opinion, the evidence presented showed more than a
mere shift from asymptomatic to symptomatic status. The
magistrate’s determination that plaintiff’s condition was
aggravated in a significant manner is supported by the testimony
of plaintiff’s expert witnesses. The WCAC chose to replace the
magistrate’s findings, thereby misapprehending its administrative
appellate role and the substantial evidence standard. See Mudel
v Great A&P Tea Co, 462 Mich 691, 699-700, 703-704
(2000). Therefore, I would grant leave to appeal.